Nevada committee hears bill to require fertility‑preservation coverage for some cancer patients

Nevada senators on the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor heard Assembly Bill 428, a proposal from Assemblymember Tanya Flanagan that would require certain public and private health plans to cover fertility‑preservation procedures for insured people diagnosed with cancers whose treatment could cause infertility.

Flanagan, who identified herself as a three‑time breast cancer survivor, told the committee the bill is intended to give people facing cancer an option to preserve fertility choices that many currently cannot afford. She told the committee that National Institutes of Health figures show national costs around $10,000 to $15,000 for embryo preservation plus storage fees and that roughly 18 states and the District of Columbia have enacted similar requirements.

The bill text, as explained by Flanagan, would require coverage by public and private plans, including Medicaid and insurance for state and local government employees, for procedures or services deemed medically necessary to preserve fertility for an insured diagnosed with breast or ovarian cancer if the cancer or its treatment may directly or indirectly cause infertility. Flanagan said the measure includes a religious‑objector exemption: “An insurer that is affiliated with a religious organization is not required to provide coverage if the insurer objects providing the coverage on religious grounds and provides written notice,” she told the committee.

Flanagan described enforcement powers for the state insurance regulator: the bill authorizes the commissioner of insurance to require an individual health policy issued by a domestic insurer to a nonresident to include the coverage and authorizes the commissioner to suspend or revoke certificates of health maintenance organizations or take action against other insurers that fail to provide the coverage.

Committee members asked practical questions about scale and benefit design. Senator Lang asked how many people in Nevada might be affected; Flanagan said the eligible population would be small and highly dependent on employer population and age mix. Citing an internal projection discussed with the Department of Education (PED), Flanagan said an example projection showed about seven people in a particular employer group, while other employer projections were lower: “You could see 1 to 5 people in a year in a company or less,” she said. The sponsor also told senators the bill intentionally leaves flexibility for carriers and providers to structure benefit details (for example, how many retrievals or the timing), and that plan design conversations would follow if the bill advances.

One witness, Leo Benavides of UNLV, offered brief support during the in‑room testimony. No callers registered in support, opposition or neutral testimony on the public phone lines during the hearing. The committee closed the hearing on AB 428 without a work session; staff notified the room that a work session would be held later behind the bar on the Senate floor.

The hearing record includes the sponsor’s personal account and cost figures as presented to the committee; the bill text referenced clinical guidance from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the American Society of Clinical Oncology as standards for coverage determinations.